No Time To Die: Production Diary

15135145165185192507

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    I wouldn't want it to happen either, but once you go public all bets are off.

    It reminds me of Michael Jackson's ATV back catalogue. Once he sold 50% to Sony he was beholden to them to some extent and they had leverage over him due to the value of the asset (which was a much larger portion of his total wealth than it was of Sony).

    So if MGM goes public, the Bond franchise is likely to be 50% in someone else's hands at some point down the road.

    Not really true

    Saltzman sold his 50% to UA in 1975 but in 1986 Broccoli bought them back to own 100% of the parent company Danjaq which holds the rights. Although the trademarks for material related to the Bond films are held by Danjaq, the copyrights to the first 20 film properties are co-owned by Danjaq LLC and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios.

    Interesting...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I just read somewhere that MGM has the exclusive financing and distribution rights to the Bond franchise. Some sites report for 20 yrs (not sure when that started) and others say indefinitely.

    If that's true, it implies that Sony is involved only because MGM can't presently do it on its own. If MGM is able to do it on its own (post-IPO), then they ostensibly would not need an outside distributor in the future.

    Having said that, I still assume that if MGM does go public in the future, they the entire company can hypothetically be purchased on the open share market. In such a scenario, the acquirer probably will have all the MGM exclusive distribution rights in their hands - but not sure about this.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited November 2016 Posts: 2,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    @SirHilaryBray, what is MGM's involvement in the Bond franchise exactly? I thought they had 50% ownership rights to the franchise along with EON.

    Danjaq hold 100% of the rights post 1986. The copyrights to the first 20 film properties are co-owned by Danjaq LLC and MGM, MGM (Their subsidiary UA) remained the studio partner after they acquired UA. The copyrights to Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall and Spectre are shared between Danjaq LLC, MGM, and Sony -Columbia Pictures Industries Inc.

    Danjaq LLC and it's sister Company EON could and are the only ones who could make Bond movies without MGM, but they couldn't remake any elements from the prior films which is likely to cover characters created etc. without potential legal suits.

    In simple terms. Danjaq LLC (EON) the are the only ones who can make future films as they still have the exclusivity rights originally granted in the deal with Fleming (the intellectual property owner) to make Bond Movies.

    Any agreement outside this is made on a film by film basis with it's studio partner and distributor who ultimately finance the film.

    A bit of a head warp.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @SirHilaryBray, thanks for the clarification. So, does MGM have the exclusive 'distribution' and 'financing' rights for Bond (for a limited period or indefinitely)? That's what I'm reading publicly. That suggests EON can make a Bond film but would not be able to legally distribute it without MGM.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    @SirHilaryBray, thanks for the clarification. So, does MGM have the exclusive 'distribution' and 'financing' rights for Bond (for a limited period or indefinitely)? That's what I'm reading publicly. That suggests EON can make a Bond film but would not be able to legally distribute it without MGM.

    MGM own is 50% of the rights to the films made and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, to date, it also owns the sole distribution rights to Eon's Bond films.

    But it is important to remember Danjaq LLC and EON are Sister Companies but not the same company. The Rights to make the films sit with Danjaq LLC under licence to EON. And EON then have the deal with MGM. If it every came to a mass dispute Danjaq LLC could wynd up EON therefore voiding all contracts and Danjaq LLC could then set up a new production company.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    @SirHilaryBray, thanks for the clarification. So, does MGM have the exclusive 'distribution' and 'financing' rights for Bond (for a limited period or indefinitely)? That's what I'm reading publicly. That suggests EON can make a Bond film but would not be able to legally distribute it without MGM.

    MGM own is 50% of the rights to the films made and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, to date, it also owns the sole distribution rights to Eon's Bond films.

    But it is important to remember Danjaq LLC and EON are Sister Companies but not the same company. The Rights to make the films sit with Danjaq LLC under licence to EON. And EON then have the deal with MGM. If it every came to a mass dispute Danjaq LLC could wynd up EON therefore voiding all contracts and Danjaq LLC could then set up a new production company.
    Thanks again.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @SirHilaryBray, thanks for the clarification. So, does MGM have the exclusive 'distribution' and 'financing' rights for Bond (for a limited period or indefinitely)? That's what I'm reading publicly. That suggests EON can make a Bond film but would not be able to legally distribute it without MGM.

    MGM own is 50% of the rights to the films made and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, to date, it also owns the sole distribution rights to Eon's Bond films.

    But it is important to remember Danjaq LLC and EON are Sister Companies but not the same company. The Rights to make the films sit with Danjaq LLC under licence to EON. And EON then have the deal with MGM. If it every came to a mass dispute Danjaq LLC could wynd up EON therefore voiding all contracts and Danjaq LLC could then set up a new production company.
    Thanks again.

    No problem, not the easiest business set up in history, but again that goes back to Saltzman spending money before he had it and McCrory milking Bond for all he could. Wouldn't change it though, just adds to the fascination and drama of the whole thing.
  • Murdock wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    They've always kept members of the old guard during a reboot. That's not something new.

    There has been only one reboot.

    Two in my head canon.

    Sean, George and Roger are one long continuity. Tim and Pierce are a second continuity. And Daniel is a new one. Two reboots.

    Dalton's link to Tracy is pretty clear.

    So does Pierce, They had Tracy in their continuity's too we just didn't see it.

    Not really. Even MGW once questioned whether the memory of Tracy exists in the Brosnan era. The "have you ever lost a loved one" line from Elektra, is more likely to refer to Paris Carver.

    You'll have to dig up that MGW reference, I've never heard that said before. And Paris? Bond has lost enough sacrificial lambs in his time that I doubt Paris would have any longer lasting effect on him. He may as well be reacting to Ferrara or Saunders there. No, his response clearly carries the weight of Tracy.

    At the 1995 Bond convention in New York, MGW said how the Bond series is "a series of series." He didn't go into a lot of detail, but that could imply that Brosnan had his own separate timeline.
  • Can someone enlighten me about the news from Gary Barber?

    MGM shareholders call it was confirmed Bond 25 was in development.

    To be a bit more precise, Barber said "we continue to develop..." and then listed several movie projects before adding "as well as the 25th installment of the James Bond series."

  • edited November 2016 Posts: 2,115
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Elon Musk is a huge Bond fan by the way. He's like a real life Bond villain without the villainy of course. Even has a great Flemingesque name :D

    Also, for a time in 2015, his photo for his verified Twitter account was shot from the neck down, with him holding a stuffed cat and extended one of his pinky fingers like Dr. Evil.

    elon-musk.jpg
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Elon Musk is a huge Bond fan by the way. He's like a real life Bond villain without the villainy of course. Even has a great Flemingesque name :D

    Also, for a time in 2015, his photo for his verified Twitter account was shot from the neck down, with him holding a stuffed cat and extended one of his pinky fingers like Dr. Evil.

    elon-musk.jpg

    Funny. The Tesla S uses a graphic of the Lotus from TSWLM for some function that I can't recall at the moment. Pretty sure the car isn't submersible.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    The real interesting question is who is owning/deciding at Daniaq !
    It's EON's sister company so what?
    If BB/MGW are involved with Daniaq it's all the same and probably a construct for technical reasons (tax etc).
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    I think it's MGW who's under ownership of Danjaq.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2016 Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @SirHilaryBray, thanks for the clarification. So, does MGM have the exclusive 'distribution' and 'financing' rights for Bond (for a limited period or indefinitely)? That's what I'm reading publicly. That suggests EON can make a Bond film but would not be able to legally distribute it without MGM.

    MGM own is 50% of the rights to the films made and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, to date, it also owns the sole distribution rights to Eon's Bond films.

    But it is important to remember Danjaq LLC and EON are Sister Companies but not the same company. The Rights to make the films sit with Danjaq LLC under licence to EON. And EON then have the deal with MGM. If it every came to a mass dispute Danjaq LLC could wynd up EON therefore voiding all contracts and Danjaq LLC could then set up a new production company.
    Thanks again.

    No problem, not the easiest business set up in history, but again that goes back to Saltzman spending money before he had it and McCrory milking Bond for all he could. Wouldn't change it though, just adds to the fascination and drama of the whole thing.

    Thanks for explaining that. Does EoN's film rights include all the icons like the 007 logo and the Bond theme? ...and the gunbarrel?
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Murdock wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    They've always kept members of the old guard during a reboot. That's not something new.

    There has been only one reboot.

    Two in my head canon.

    Sean, George and Roger are one long continuity. Tim and Pierce are a second continuity. And Daniel is a new one. Two reboots.

    Dalton's link to Tracy is pretty clear.

    So does Pierce, They had Tracy in their continuity's too we just didn't see it.

    Not really. Even MGW once questioned whether the memory of Tracy exists in the Brosnan era. The "have you ever lost a loved one" line from Elektra, is more likely to refer to Paris Carver.

    You'll have to dig up that MGW reference, I've never heard that said before. And Paris? Bond has lost enough sacrificial lambs in his time that I doubt Paris would have any longer lasting effect on him. He may as well be reacting to Ferrara or Saunders there. No, his response clearly carries the weight of Tracy.

    At the 1995 Bond convention in New York, MGW said how the Bond series is "a series of series." He didn't go into a lot of detail, but that could imply that Brosnan had his own separate timeline.

    I always saw Brosnan as a continuation of Dalton. But I never saw Dalton as the same Bond or
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @SirHilaryBray, thanks for the clarification. So, does MGM have the exclusive 'distribution' and 'financing' rights for Bond (for a limited period or indefinitely)? That's what I'm reading publicly. That suggests EON can make a Bond film but would not be able to legally distribute it without MGM.

    MGM own is 50% of the rights to the films made and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, to date, it also owns the sole distribution rights to Eon's Bond films.

    But it is important to remember Danjaq LLC and EON are Sister Companies but not the same company. The Rights to make the films sit with Danjaq LLC under licence to EON. And EON then have the deal with MGM. If it every came to a mass dispute Danjaq LLC could wynd up EON therefore voiding all contracts and Danjaq LLC could then set up a new production company.
    Thanks again.

    No problem, not the easiest business set up in history, but again that goes back to Saltzman spending money before he had it and McCrory milking Bond for all he could. Wouldn't change it though, just adds to the fascination and drama of the whole thing.

    Thanks for explaining that. Does EoN's film rights include all the icons like the 007 logo and the Bond theme? ...and the gunbarrel?

    EON/Danjaq created all those trademarks and the gunbarrel it's their TM'S and Trademarks under intellectual property.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    jake24 wrote: »
    I think it's MGW who's under ownership of Danjaq.

    Correct Cubby handed it over to him and EON to Barbs. Only directors on both firms are Barbs and Mike. The creative aspect and licences are well wrapped up by Wilson & Broccoli, excellent custodians. Fleming, although desperate to see his creation on the big screen, landed on his feet when he signed off film rights to EON (Cubby & Harry). And I am sure that will continue with Michael 's sons & Barbs daughter who I believe is studying the film industry. Bond will continue to be looked after for another generation.
  • Posts: 9,846
    Could MGM afford say a cheaper bond film?

    Utilizing locations like India Greece etc it could work
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Could MGM afford say a cheaper bond film?

    Utilizing locations like India Greece etc it could work

    And make it tighter and more focused, shorter and less action. They could make a great film under or around 2 hours for 150 million dollars, easy. I know because Mad Max and Mission Impossible do it.
  • Posts: 9,846
    Ok so then MGM should do that
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Could MGM afford say a cheaper bond film?

    Utilizing locations like India Greece etc it could work

    hqdefault.jpg
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Could MGM afford say a cheaper bond film?

    Utilizing locations like India Greece etc it could work

    hqdefault.jpg

    Awww
  • MGM have plenty of money, they generate shed loads of cash and have a $1bn credit facility that hasn't been touched.

    http://deadline.com/2016/06/mgm-reduces-interest-outlays-with-new-1b-credit-facility-1201781219/
  • Posts: 9,846
    Ok then in theory MGM could do Bond 25 by themselves and still get top talent and beautiful (but slightly cheaper) locations

    Hmm now looking at a director like Guy Richie who isn't cheap but isn't expensive either makes sense
  • Posts: 157
    I have a suggestion for a Bond theme. Babs and Michael, if you are reading this, please do consider this song and pay attention to the lyrics. Blofeld would be glad to have a theme of his own.


  • Posts: 16,153
    The conversation here regarding MGM, rights, distribution is enthralling, however I wonder where Bond would be if UA had never merged with MGM in 1982?
  • edited November 2016 Posts: 1,314
    dont see this as cast iron proof of the film being in production to be honest.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    The conversation here regarding MGM, rights, distribution is enthralling, however I wonder where Bond would be if UA had never merged with MGM in 1982?

    It could have been either even more successful or death. The only appeal for buying UA was the Bond distribution rights it took a while for them to see a return but someomes leap of faith paid off for MGM. Had the likes of Warner Brothers bought UA instead we could have had a lot more Bind films by now. Or a lesser studio may have stalled it further.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    I know things look dire at the moment, but just think, there's a possibility we could have a new Bond announced within the next 2 years. I know that's not what some here want to happen, but that's only happened 6 times in the series before. And when you look at the films that Actors deliver as their first outing (DN, OHMSS, LALD, TLD, GE, CR) we're almost guaranteed a classic!
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    SonofSean wrote: »
    Wow. It's been a whole year since Spectre premiered and there has been exactly zero movement on Bond 25. Boy, Daniel Craig wasn't joking when he said "we" (meaning Babs, Wilson, et al) are tired / exhausted / burned out. I had expected to have had some news on Bond 25 from the producers / studio before the end of 2016, but it's now looking very unlikely. Who knows when we'll hear something. It could be a very long gap, maybe even 2020 - a 5 year gap between movies! Maybe longer. who knows. I would imagine investors and Sony chiefs are feeling anxious. I mean, Mission Impossible 6 will be out in 2018 so why is Bond so far behind? As a fan I have to say it's a bit disappointing not knowing when we'll get another Bond movie. Maybe the problem lies with EON and Barbara Brocoli? Maybe they've run out of ideas and have lost interest in the character in which case they should sell the rights or give it to someone who can reinvigorate the franchise. I know that's not going to happen but I think Bond fans deserve better. And yes, I know that makes me sound self-entitled, but fans of other franchises (Star Wars, Marvel, Fast Furious) get a regular fix of their movie drug. I guess I'm just going through withdrawal symptoms. Sigh.
    Lets hope they spend some time on the script this time
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    With the reception and bastardization of every previous Craig Bond film by SP Bond 25 is going to be a hard sell whenever it does come out. To me and maybe I'm just down but things seem very dire to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.